Prev: So why do we keep having to buy memory for digital stillcameras????
Next: The geriactic quintet
From: Scotius on 28 Jul 2010 17:35
On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
<nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 7:48�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>> � � � � I know that color infra-red images look really weird (for lack
>> of a better term), but I once read that infra-red light cuts through
>> fog/haze etc better than regular light, which I suppose is why B & W
>> infra-red shots always look better than B & W shots without IR flash.
>> � � � � So I'm wondering if there's a program that could accurately
>> predict based on IR color what the colors present should be, and
>> convert them, so it would be possible to do color shots better in
>> haze, etc.
>> � � � � Anyone know of anything like this?
>
>Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?

I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
distracting.
I had read about B & W infra-red photography in an old issue
of Popular Mechanics, I think, that my Dad had lying around somewhere.
Then I had read an article on color infra-red, and I thought "Oh, well
then I'll just shoot pix like that in color infra-red and convert them
on the computer back at home. People can't see infra-red, so there
won't be a visible flash, and I'll convert the pix and have great
shots that didn't bother anyone".
It's since been explained to me that there's no method of
converting the color infra-red pix, since the information about actual
color is just as gone in those as it would be in black and white.
I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
From: Scotius on 28 Jul 2010 23:30
On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
<bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 4:35�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>> >Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>
>> � � � � I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>> distracting.
>...
>> � � � � I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>
>It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>flash at a concert. These were taken (not by me) without flash. I
>wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>possible:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623793453107/
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623793453107/
>
>Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>D3000, as far as sensor size.
>
>You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>

Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.
From: Savageduck on 28 Jul 2010 23:56
On 2010-07-28 20:30:25 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:

> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
> <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 28, 4:35�pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>>>> Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>>
>>> � � � � I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>>> distracting.
>> ...
>>> � � � � I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>>
>> It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>> flash at a concert. These were taken (not by me) without flash. I
>> wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>> possible:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623793453107/
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>
>> Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>> D3000, as far as sensor size.
>>
>> You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>> FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>>
>
> Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
> have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
> image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.

If you are still considering IR, you could buy a use D70 or other
camera and have these guys do a conversion for you. That way you would
have a dedicated IR camera.
They have several different options. Also check their IR gallery.

< http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html >



--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Peter on 29 Jul 2010 00:01
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010072820560322503-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-07-28 20:30:25 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 17:20:18 -0700 (PDT), otter
>> <bighorn_bill(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 28, 4:35 pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
>>>>> Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>>>>
>>>> I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
>>>> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
>>>> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
>>>> distracting.
>>> ...
>>>> I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
>>>> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
>>>> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.
>>>
>>> It is often not necessary, or even desirable, to take pictures with
>>> flash at a concert. These were taken (not by me) without flash. I
>>> wouldn't say they are great, but it shows that it is at least
>>> possible:
>>>
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074977/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nataliekbeats/4546074927/in/set-72157623793453107/
>>>
>>> Those were taken with a Rebel Xsi, which I think is similar to your
>>> D3000, as far as sensor size.
>>>
>>> You could also get a fast prime lens, or perhaps even a camera with a
>>> FF sensor if you wanted better low-light performance.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the advice. I think there are some settings I could
>> have played with on mine that would have allowed me to get a better
>> image, but I've got to read up a bit on it yet.
>
> If you are still considering IR, you could buy a use D70 or other camera
> and have these guys do a conversion for you. That way you would have a
> dedicated IR camera.
> They have several different options. Also check their IR gallery.
>
> < http://www.lifepixel.com/digital-infrared/samples.html >
>
>


Had my Coolpix 8088 done locally. I took just a few days and the cost was
considerable less.
It's really not a big deal. Just remove a filter from the sensor.


--
Peter

From: whisky-dave on 29 Jul 2010 04:10

"Scotius" <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
news:hf81565vddhjdppb56e7uvp4fehq820bvd(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 16:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Nervous Nick
> <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote:
>>> I know that color infra-red images look really weird (for lack
>>> of a better term), but I once read that infra-red light cuts through
>>> fog/haze etc better than regular light, which I suppose is why B & W
>>> infra-red shots always look better than B & W shots without IR flash.
>>> So I'm wondering if there's a program that could accurately
>>> predict based on IR color what the colors present should be, and
>>> convert them, so it would be possible to do color shots better in
>>> haze, etc.
>>> Anyone know of anything like this?
>>
>>Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
>
> I was recently covering a concert for a local magazine, and
> asked a stage manager about taking pix with the flash. He said go
> ahead and take a few with flash, but not too many, so as not to be
> distracting.
> I had read about B & W infra-red photography in an old issue
> of Popular Mechanics, I think, that my Dad had lying around somewhere.
> Then I had read an article on color infra-red, and I thought "Oh, well
> then I'll just shoot pix like that in color infra-red and convert them
> on the computer back at home. People can't see infra-red, so there
> won't be a visible flash, and I'll convert the pix and have great
> shots that didn't bother anyone".

I'm not sure that is practical, while you can't see infra red I'm not sure
if ther';s a flash that flashes infra red.
I've used colour IR in the past in was the old E4 process
(slide/transparency film) and from memory the film is very slow for gig
purposed under 100ASA.

> It's since been explained to me that there's no method of
> converting the color infra-red pix, since the information about actual
> color is just as gone in those as it would be in black and white.
> I suppose for a huge event I could take one with flash and
> then recolor manually and submit the pix a couple years later :), but
> that's not really what I was looking to be able to do.

I've used IR a few times, and gigs quite often. I;m not sure if it'll be any
good for gigs though.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/616881236/


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: So why do we keep having to buy memory for digital stillcameras????
Next: The geriactic quintet